The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[PoliticalChic]

But it's not her body; the life you plan for her to take belongs to someone else.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

Since I've force you to admit that the child is a separate entity, there is no way for you to continue to claim the right to kill same.

You're dismissed.

You don't get to impose your religious beliefs on someone else's body.

Both the Constitution and the penal code are based on precepts of the Bible, Judeo-Christian tradition, you, once again come across as a dunce.

 

[Carib Gyal]

But it's not her body; the life you plan for her to take belongs to someone else.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

Unless her life is threatened, she has no right to kill another human being. Maybe she could sue the child when it gets of age.

Except she is not killing the fetus. She is merely refusing to be obligated to another human being.

She is indeed killing it by her actions. Perhaps she can sue the child for unlawful use when it gets of age.

 

[Skylar]

So she should never sign such an agreement in the first place, since she cannot guarantee she can keep it, right.

'Should'? We're getting into some uselessly subjective territory here. There's no contract that is a universal absolute. There is also the possibility of non-fulfillment. Which is why we have courts. The idea that one shouldn't enter into a contract unless there is a perfect, preordained knowledge of the outcome is ludicrous. There would never be contracts if that was the case.

so is this the best way to settle the issue?

Her right to deny the use of her body in express contradiction of the contract? Its a civil issue. So....fines if the plaintiff's can convince a jury. The same as any civil issue.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

If 'She' doesn't want to conceive and she intends to engage in sexual intercourse, 'she' needs to have herself sterilized, then she may screw until she finally comes to understand that screwing, absent purpose, is fruitless and as such degrading. Then perhaps, she will teach the women over whom she has influence, what sex is and what it is not... and then... maybe things will begin to change and for the better, finally turning humanity away from the evil that she formerly represented.

 

[koshergrl]

Life does begin at conception (scientifically speaking):

""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo s Conception

I would agree with you as to when human development begins. If all goes well that development will eventually lead to a human being. Building a house may begin with a the laying of a single brick but that doesn't make that brick a house. It is impossible to say when the construction of a house results in a "house" just as it is impossible to say when biological development results in a human being. The line will be arbitrary and different people will view where that line lies differently. None of them are wrong but they have no basis to say that everyone else must accept their line as the only correct view.

No, it's already a human being. In the early stages of development.
Just as a teen is a human (but isn't an adult) and a child is a human, and an elder is a human, and a baby is a human.

It's exactly the same thing, just at a different developmental stage.

Maybe my confusion stems from the fact I don't think I can easily define what a human being is. Every one seems to know what a human being is but can anyone define it?

There are multiple definitions. For the purposes of abortion the legal definition of a person is what matters.

Legal definitions evolve as societies evolve. I'm looking for a more universal definition.

Of course you are. That's why the thread is named what it is. You people change the definitions to suit yourselves and to allow you to kill at will.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But it's not her body; the life you plan for her to take belongs to someone else.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

Unless her life is threatened, she has no right to kill another human being. Maybe she could sue the child when it gets of age.

Except she is not killing the fetus. She is merely refusing to be obligated to another human being.

Great defense: 'I didn't kill the dude, I simply deprived him of air.'

And, the moron, inadvertently, verifies the title of the thread: "the-politics-of-the-abortion-word-game"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

If 'She' doesn't want to conceive and she intends to engage in sexual intercourse, 'she' needs to have herself sterilized, then she may screw until she finally comes to understand that screwing, absent purpose, is fruitless and as such degrading. Then perhaps, she will teach the women over whom she has influence, what sex is and what it is not... and then... maybe things will begin to change and for the better, finally turning humanity away from the evil that she formerly represented.

What????

You expect personal responsibility???


For a Liberal???

 

[BlindBoo]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Life begins; like everything else... at the beginning. And the Beginning of human life is conception... and despite the Left's chronic attempt to debate, this is not even remotely debatable.

"Personhood" is a foolish rationalization which came about by a child. She was an anti-theist, a feminist and a fool who was attending Harvard and authored a paper which espoused the 'personhood' thesis.

As all rationalizations do... "Personhood" avoids reality... and specifically the reality that for there to be a right, that right must exists for everyone... and the exercise of that right cannot usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights. And Abortion strips a human being of its life, thus usurps the means of that human being to exercise it's right to its life.

And that is truly all there is to this...

A Woman's 'right to choose' is very real. It is exercised by the woman making the decision, thus the choice, in with whom, when and where she allows a man to enter her body through sexual intercourse. As long as the male is aroused, thus indicating his willingness to enter her... and BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation... and that the pleasure that is at hand is going to last a few minutes, but that the responsibility for the life that will likely be conceived is going to last for DECADES, at that point she has MADE her choice. At which time the right ends and the responsibilities BEGIN.

When nature designed us, having lots of babies was necessary for the survival of the species.

 

[Skylar]

Both the Constitution and the penal code are based on precepts of the Bible, Judeo-Christian tradition, you, once again come across as a dunce.

Really? Where in the Bible did it outline the process for electing a senator? Or passing a constitutional amendment?

Oh, and your answer is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with what you're responding to.

 

[Skylar]

Legal definitions evolve as societies evolve. I'm looking for a more universal definition.

As defined by whom?

 

[alang1216]

I would agree with you as to when human development begins. If all goes well that development will eventually lead to a human being. Building a house may begin with a the laying of a single brick but that doesn't make that brick a house. It is impossible to say when the construction of a house results in a "house" just as it is impossible to say when biological development results in a human being. The line will be arbitrary and different people will view where that line lies differently. None of them are wrong but they have no basis to say that everyone else must accept their line as the only correct view.

No, it's already a human being. In the early stages of development.
Just as a teen is a human (but isn't an adult) and a child is a human, and an elder is a human, and a baby is a human.

It's exactly the same thing, just at a different developmental stage.

Maybe my confusion stems from the fact I don't think I can easily define what a human being is. Every one seems to know what a human being is but can anyone define it?

There are multiple definitions. For the purposes of abortion the legal definition of a person is what matters.

Legal definitions evolve as societies evolve. I'm looking for a more universal definition.

Of course you are. That's why the thread is named what it is. You people change the definitions to suit yourselves and to allow you to kill at will.

That means 'you' people are asserting rights for something you can't define and apparently don't understand. Sounds arbitrary to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Life begins; like everything else... at the beginning. And the Beginning of human life is conception... and despite the Left's chronic attempt to debate, this is not even remotely debatable.

"Personhood" is a foolish rationalization which came about by a child. She was an anti-theist, a feminist and a fool who was attending Harvard and authored a paper which espoused the 'personhood' thesis.

As all rationalizations do... "Personhood" avoids reality... and specifically the reality that for there to be a right, that right must exists for everyone... and the exercise of that right cannot usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights. And Abortion strips a human being of its life, thus usurps the means of that human being to exercise it's right to its life.

And that is truly all there is to this...

A Woman's 'right to choose' is very real. It is exercised by the woman making the decision, thus the choice, in with whom, when and where she allows a man to enter her body through sexual intercourse. As long as the male is aroused, thus indicating his willingness to enter her... and BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation... and that the pleasure that is at hand is going to last a few minutes, but that the responsibility for the life that will likely be conceived is going to last for DECADES, at that point she has MADE her choice. At which time the right ends and the responsibilities BEGIN.

When nature designed us, having lots of babies was necessary for the survival of the species.

So say you.

Liberals have been taught that human being are no different from animals.

Sad.

But....it may be true in your case.

 

[koshergrl]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Life begins; like everything else... at the beginning. And the Beginning of human life is conception... and despite the Left's chronic attempt to debate, this is not even remotely debatable.

"Personhood" is a foolish rationalization which came about by a child. She was an anti-theist, a feminist and a fool who was attending Harvard and authored a paper which espoused the 'personhood' thesis.

As all rationalizations do... "Personhood" avoids reality... and specifically the reality that for there to be a right, that right must exists for everyone... and the exercise of that right cannot usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights. And Abortion strips a human being of its life, thus usurps the means of that human being to exercise it's right to its life.

And that is truly all there is to this...

A Woman's 'right to choose' is very real. It is exercised by the woman making the decision, thus the choice, in with whom, when and where she allows a man to enter her body through sexual intercourse. As long as the male is aroused, thus indicating his willingness to enter her... and BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation... and that the pleasure that is at hand is going to last a few minutes, but that the responsibility for the life that will likely be conceived is going to last for DECADES, at that point she has MADE her choice. At which time the right ends and the responsibilities BEGIN.

When nature designed us, having lots of babies was necessary for the survival of the species.

So now that you think there are enough humans, it's time to start killing them?

Ok.

Psst...nature didn't design us. Nature isn't an entity.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it's already a human being. In the early stages of development.
Just as a teen is a human (but isn't an adult) and a child is a human, and an elder is a human, and a baby is a human.

It's exactly the same thing, just at a different developmental stage.

Maybe my confusion stems from the fact I don't think I can easily define what a human being is. Every one seems to know what a human being is but can anyone define it?

There are multiple definitions. For the purposes of abortion the legal definition of a person is what matters.

Legal definitions evolve as societies evolve. I'm looking for a more universal definition.

Of course you are. That's why the thread is named what it is. You people change the definitions to suit yourselves and to allow you to kill at will.

That means 'you' people are asserting rights for something you can't define and apparently don't understand. Sounds arbitrary to me.

I define it perfectly well, thank you, with the assistance of my friends at Princeton. I provided the citations, and attributed the sources. Where were you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both the Constitution and the penal code are based on precepts of the Bible, Judeo-Christian tradition, you, once again come across as a dunce.

Really? Where in the Bible did it outline the process for electing a senator? Or passing a constitutional amendment?

Oh, and your answer is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with what you're responding to.

I just schooled you on the biological difference between the child and the mother...and force you to lie and claim that it was your argument.

Now you want remedial education on the Biblical basis of our government????

OK...

1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots Part 7

 

[Skylar]

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

 

[alang1216]

Legal definitions evolve as societies evolve. I'm looking for a more universal definition.

As defined by whom?

A universal definition should be independent of the "whom".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

You can run but you can't hide.

You can't deny that the child is not her body, can you.

Deny it? The embryo no being part of her body is the basis of my argument.

Its separate. And as such, she can deny it the use of her body. As she has no obligation to allow anyone or anything to use her body against her will.

Unless her life is threatened, she has no right to kill another human being. Maybe she could sue the child when it gets of age.

Except she is not killing the fetus. She is merely refusing to be obligated to another human being.

Great defense: 'I didn't kill the dude, I simply deprived him of air.'

And, the moron, inadvertently, verifies the title of the thread: "the-politics-of-the-abortion-word-game"

You are the one who wanted to play this silly semantics game so stop whining now that you are looking foolish, PoliticalSpice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Life begins; like everything else... at the beginning. And the Beginning of human life is conception... and despite the Left's chronic attempt to debate, this is not even remotely debatable.

"Personhood" is a foolish rationalization which came about by a child. She was an anti-theist, a feminist and a fool who was attending Harvard and authored a paper which espoused the 'personhood' thesis.

As all rationalizations do... "Personhood" avoids reality... and specifically the reality that for there to be a right, that right must exists for everyone... and the exercise of that right cannot usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights. And Abortion strips a human being of its life, thus usurps the means of that human being to exercise it's right to its life.

And that is truly all there is to this...

A Woman's 'right to choose' is very real. It is exercised by the woman making the decision, thus the choice, in with whom, when and where she allows a man to enter her body through sexual intercourse. As long as the male is aroused, thus indicating his willingness to enter her... and BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation... and that the pleasure that is at hand is going to last a few minutes, but that the responsibility for the life that will likely be conceived is going to last for DECADES, at that point she has MADE her choice. At which time the right ends and the responsibilities BEGIN.

When nature designed us, having lots of babies was necessary for the survival of the species.

So now that you think there are enough humans, it's time to start killing them?

Ok.

Psst...nature didn't design us. Nature isn't an entity.

I'll bet he thinks the world is overpopulated, too.

Liberals are taught to live from one crisis to another.

 

[Carib Gyal]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.